All lawmakers had to do was approve four words

Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2015, at 5:11 PM
Comments
View 33 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • What four words?

    -- Posted by Sam_1776 on Wed, Feb 4, 2015, at 8:28 AM
  • Brian

    "Add the words"

    -- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Feb 4, 2015, at 10:56 AM
  • I must have violated some rule.

    I'm not surprised considering the past behavior of this state regarding same sex marriage. 400K down a losing rathole and counting. Be assured there will be religious freedom bills allowing discrimination and even more money will be thrown down the same rathole.

    Sad.

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Wed, Feb 4, 2015, at 2:39 PM
  • The 4 words " sexual orientation " and " gender identity "

    -- Posted by kcsdad on Wed, Feb 4, 2015, at 7:09 PM
  • CB, what was discussed was amending an existing statute to include LGBT's. The original act was written I believe because of federal law, not because of the desire of the people of Idaho to offer protections to the classes of people that are covered under the Idaho Human Rights Act. Churches are still allowed to refuse to perform marriages of people that aren't of their faith, and that is fair. The proposed change wouldn't change that.

    Now as to your side note, you need look no further than your friend Mike, who if he owned a business would have no problem denying employment or services to any LGBT.

    That is why laws have to be written.

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 6:34 AM
  • Mike and CB, it can be inferred then that both of you would support the complete repeal of the civil rights act. If this is true, then man up and say so.

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 10:26 AM
  • It's too bad for Mike and CoolBreeze that the State of Idaho has to follow Federal Laws. The legislature can refuse to cooperate but too bad, the Federal Laws will be followed.

    -- Posted by Sam_1776 on Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 11:18 AM
  • *

    To some extent Sam, you're right. But there's also state sovereignty, of which states often utilize when they don't agree entirely with Federal law. Idaho, is a prime example in relation to public land. The farther east you go, you'll notice individual states follow more closely what Federal law intends concerning public land use, which is actually pretty restrictive. In the interior west, states tend to be a little less restrictive, therefore...the wonderful access we have here in Idaho. More over, as recently as a year ago, Montana created state law that states if a firearm is manufactured in Montana, and you are a Montana resident, no NICS (background/criminal history) check is required when purchasing the firearm, directly obtuse to the Brady Bill (Federal Law). The selling business can create additional rules as they see fit, and local law enforcement agencies made call-in NCIC checks more accessible. The Federal Government stated that Montana's law isn't legal, but I haven't read any articles about the ATF or FBI committing a coup up there either. I don't want to get into the firearms debate...not trying to change the subject. I'm just trying to establish the point that this is a republic, united by the belief of basic freedoms, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, of which each person can find in the area that best suits them. To piggy back on Mike's point and combine that with population increases in surrounding states, case-in-point of the rapid exodus of California. That said...

    ...If I owned a business, I personally have no problem with a persons personal life, as long as it doesn't affect others in their personal life, and therefore would hire the best suited and most qualified person for the job. I don't care who a person sleeps with, does in their off-time, has for dinner, god they pray to if any. If my customers don't like sharing a bathroom (example only, don't get ruffled) with someone who appears different, they can get over it, or go somewhere else. If I can't make my business work based on that premise, I would move or do something else to mitigate the issue...maybe a third bathroom...situation dictates.. I've always felt that way, but I'm also pretty open minded and don't need a government to legislate my right of choice. I care about: Show up, do your job, give your suggestions how to improve the business, go home, get paid...rinse and repeat the follow day. Lastly, people are fickle, and I'm sure we could sand-table all day different scenarios where legislation is helpful or could harm. But I say again...people are fickle, and the majority can't be pigeon-holed by the minority. But that's the science of law making, so each state does there best, thru the sovereignty given to them as being a member of a republic and The Union. And back to the beginning of my comment...

    -- Posted by Darksc8p on Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 1:32 PM
  • Darksc8p, the Montana law you speak of is legal because the way it was constructed, the firearms are not considered interstate commerce. The feds may not like it, but it is what it is. The rapid exodus from California was a combination of many factors. In my case it was monetary not political. Cheap housing and at the time decent wages. Some did come here for the politics, but I would wager that most were driven by cheap housing. The long and short of it is that the Constitution states very clearly that Federal law will always prevail, and the SCOTUS has last say as what is Constitutional and what isn't. My gut say's that the SCOTUS will uphold the circuit courts of appeals that the various state laws and constitutional amendments outlawing same sex marriage as well as laws not recognizing marriages from other states are indeed unconstitutional. Sometime in the future look for the Civil Rights Act to be amended to include LGBT's because of the bad behavior of some.

    I am an old man and have seen much in my years. Things that many would like to forget ever happened because they were so foul. I predict that 50-70 years down the road people will look back and express disbelief that this discussion ever even had to take place.

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 3:55 PM
  • Roy???

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 6:00 PM
  • State rights don't override the constitution or any of its amendments, Darksc8p.

    CoolBreeze, you need to check some history yourself. The Democrats used to be a lot like the Tea Party in the 1860's but they moved in droves to the Republican party because they were really conservatives. The Republican party had been increasingly conservative, but with the conservative Democrats changing to Republicans became even more conservative.

    Unfortunately conservatism has over the past years has come to represent the opposite of civil rights. Conservatives dragged their feet over integration in the last century and now they are dragging their feet over equal rights based on sexual orientation and gender.

    -- Posted by Sam_1776 on Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 6:25 PM
  • No, Mike, I fully support following the constitution, not the Tea Party interpretation of it, but the actual constitution as defined by various Supreme Court decisions.

    On the topic of the blog, civil rights is important. Federal law and supreme court decisions have extended that to include gender and sexual orientation civil rights.

    -- Posted by Sam_1776 on Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 8:23 PM
  • CB, it boggles the mind that you equate the "Dixiecrats" with the entire Democratic Party. The numbers and sources in this article are part of the congressional record.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Fri, Feb 6, 2015, at 6:09 AM
  • This blog is all about civil rights!

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Fri, Feb 6, 2015, at 8:11 AM
  • Hire who you wish. We're sure you'll read this during or maybe after you hire;

    http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/fepa.cfm

    -- Posted by sara-connor on Fri, Feb 6, 2015, at 10:48 AM
  • I'm pretty sure that if Mike was to become an employer that he would not read that.

    I read it though and found it enlightening. When people are discriminated against they can file with either the EEOC or with a state agency that may be working with the EEOC.

    According to the Cornell Law School, there is the Constitution, notably the 13th and 14th Amendments, and then federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. State and local statutes can EXTEND even more protections to citizens but they can't REDUCE the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, Amendments to the Constitution and Federal laws.

    I take this to mean that it does not matter that conservative Idaho legislators want to drag their feet on guaranteeing rights. Federal laws are already handling it. So, Republicans, keep leaving out the four words. It doesn't matter.

    As a taxpayer, I am concerned that Otter has been spending state money on fighting the Federal government in order to try to continue discrimination.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights

    -- Posted by Sam_1776 on Fri, Feb 6, 2015, at 5:42 PM
  • If it wasn't for criminal laws, civil rights laws or maybe the US Constitution we're positive * you can't legislate morality * in the USA.

    -- Posted by sara-connor on Fri, Feb 6, 2015, at 8:29 PM
  • The 10th Amendment to the Constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    Since the 14th Amendment DOES specifically provide protection from discrimination, the 10th Amendment does not apply, Mike.

    -- Posted by Sam_1776 on Sat, Feb 7, 2015, at 11:36 AM
  • All of the Constitution applies to some things, but you can't just pick and choose the amendments that you like and ignore the ones that you don't like. On the topic of this blog the 14th Amendment applies, and the 10th Amendment does not.

    -- Posted by Sam_1776 on Sat, Feb 7, 2015, at 6:57 PM
  • On the topic of the blog, where the 14th Amendment applies, where has Obama not followed this Amendment?

    -- Posted by Sam_1776 on Sun, Feb 8, 2015, at 12:55 PM
  • We're certain the issue and topic is about approving 4 simple words, freedom and providing better protections for state residents when it comes to discrimination. We are positive California has nothing to do with the topic nor issue but more research may be needed. Just to be sure we're going to read the blog post again as part of that research. Other could do the same, but?

    -- Posted by sara-connor on Mon, Feb 9, 2015, at 7:00 PM
  • I've never lived in California. I was born in Idaho and have lived here most of my life,except for military service, college, and a job for awhile in Portland, Oregon.

    Mike do a reality check.

    -- Posted by Sam_1776 on Tue, Feb 10, 2015, at 1:19 AM
  • *

    Re: employers right to employ; An employer with a business in state A, one of the remaining states that do not recognize same sex unions, has a need to fill a critical position within their company, and the most qualified individual would necessarily relocate to the state upon acceptance of the position. At the time the position is offered to that most qualified individual, they reside with their partner in a state that recognizes same-sex unions. When offered the position, the most qualified individual makes the decision not to relocate because of the stance on same-sex marriage. It is certainly within the candidate's right to relocate. Perhaps the state government's refusal to extend recognition has impinged on the employer's right to hire those determined to be most qualified to employ.

    Civil rights enable individuals to move about the nation at will, without concern as to whether their liberty, their right to pursue of happiness, a right to exercise a "freedom of affection", and their right to pursue satisfying, perhaps lucrative, employment may be inhibited.

    -- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Feb 10, 2015, at 6:48 AM
  • We are wondering; why would anyone condone discrimination of any kind?

    We have all been discriminated against in one way or another; unless you have no heart or soul that uncalled for behavior couldn't have felt good. So why condone it?

    -- Posted by sara-connor on Tue, Feb 10, 2015, at 7:48 AM
  • Idaho is talked about all over the country for it's discrimination based on various things - gender, race, sexual orientation and more. This discourages businesses from locating here. Congratulations to the right on continuing to keep Idaho with one of the lowest average income.

    -- Posted by Geordey on Tue, Feb 10, 2015, at 5:06 PM
  • We were wondering this morning how anyone could condone discrimination of any kind.

    We now realize some people consider discrimination about as egregious as watching a show they don't like. Bitter, angry and rigid is just the what shows on the surface of these types of people. Deep down, the darkness is absolute. We feel sorrow such soulless individuals exist in this country.

    -- Posted by sara-connor on Tue, Feb 10, 2015, at 7:58 PM
  • I have listened and I am very much ashamed of what I HEAR.

    There seems to be a group here that can justify there bigotry no matter what.THAT MEANS THAT THEY WILL DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER HUMANS IN THERE RIGHTS TO WORK,EAT,PUBLIC ACCOMADATIONS,TRANSPORTATION,HOSPITAL CARE AND ANY NUMBER OF THINGS THAT AFFECT THERE DAILY ABILITY TO LIVE FREELY.As freely as anyone of them.

    The problem being that when you can justify bigotry against one you justify it against all.I have heard every bigoted thing said here so many times it is beyond counting.

    This is not a conservative or liberal issue it is a human issue period.I had hoped it would have been discussed that way.There is something that did come out of this, some can no longer deny there bigotry.So Idaho will continue to be talked about as the Mississippi of the west,that is not a title I am proud of. Our actions are bearing that out.HOW HUMAN DIGNITY IS DETERIORATING OR SELLING OUT THE COUNTRY IS ONE ON ME !!!!

    -- Posted by lamont on Tue, Feb 10, 2015, at 11:07 PM
  • *

    Hi lamont. I hope you're doing well.

    I have written an article reviewing some points contained in "Notes of a Native Son", and I touch on many of the points you noted in your post. I hope to post it here on MHN if my blog application is approved.

    Take care.

    -- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Feb 11, 2015, at 6:23 AM
  • Words we all should take to heart and understand as some advocate discrimination as a good and just behavior.

    * Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated". *

    -- Posted by sara-connor on Wed, Feb 11, 2015, at 9:38 AM
  • AGAIN MIKE..... THE SUBJECT IS CHANGED TO EXSPOUSE YOUR POINT OF VIEW.....THAT IS FINE FOR YOU.I personally will not have my loyalty questioned mike by you or anyone .WETHER YOU DO IT BY IMPLICATION OR ANY OTHER WAY.Discrimination is against the law. I know what my oath says.If yours allows discrimination then that is your interpretation which you are entitled to. Don't even think I will interpret it the same way.I refuse to argue discrimination with you because unless you have esperienced it and how it affects your life (or threatens it ) daily YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE.You talk about it but it is not happening to you.What I read here makes me sick to my stomach. I would like to think people don't have any idea what they have really conveyed,but I know they do......I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE .....NOTHING HAS CHANGED FOR SOME AND THERFORE MY LIFE IS STILL AT RISK. NOTHING HAS BEEN SAID HERE TO MAKE ME FEEL ANY OTHER WAY.BIGOTRY CAN ALWAYS BE JUSTIFIED AS LONG AS YOU FEEL THE ALBI'S DONT APPLY TO YOU OR YOUR EXCEPTIONS. That is were we get the comment some of my best friends are .........HELLO !!!!!!!!

    -- Posted by lamont on Wed, Feb 11, 2015, at 10:08 AM
  • Government's first priority is to protect its citizens----------not run their lives.

    When it comes to discrimination, running some peoples lives is needed to protect other citizens lives.

    -- Posted by the old progressive on Wed, Feb 11, 2015, at 5:00 PM
  • DAVE ........IF YOU WANT I WILL SEND YOU MY E MAIL ADDRESSE AND YOU CAN SEND IT TO ME !!!!!! I am doing well !!!!I have a few side effects but nothing major. They are things I am told will subside and go away.I tolerated the chemo and radiation pretty well.I hope you and yours are well ill be looking forward to that post...........take care

    -- Posted by lamont on Wed, Feb 11, 2015, at 5:06 PM
  • I do believe this topic has run its course and is taking many detours. Thank you for your comments and opinions.

    -- Posted by Brenda M Fincher Publisher MHNews on Wed, Feb 11, 2015, at 5:09 PM